In which Republican ruminations on exemptions for rape prompt an epic smackdown by a pro-choice prosecuting attorney.
I am a prosecutor and I prosecute people accused of crimes. So if we find ourselves in a situation where women who get abortions that don’t fall under one of those exceptions have committed a crime, then I’m going to be the one making the decisions about what happens next. That’s my job. And I have to say, I am more than a little bit uncomfortable about being legally mandated to prosecute other women because they have terminated a pregnancy when it is a bunch of non-pregnant people – many of whom are men who can’t even become pregnant – who don’t think her reason was “good enough” to be “legal”.
It’s not our practice to re-post comments as posts unto themselves, but co-editor of Dialogue, Mathieu Marion, made such a heartfelt apology in the comments on our recent post about Dialogue‘s failure to include any women in its 50th Anniversary edition that it deserves a post of its own. He took full responsibility and expressed his regret in a way that makes it clear that he “gets it.”
He said: “I am one of the editors of Dialogue and I write this primarily on my behalf, but it is my understanding that my co-editor supports my statement; I take here full responsibility. I was made aware of this yesterday by a letter from Shannon Dea [chair of the CPA Equity Committee], whom I would like to thank for bringing the matter to my/our attention. I wrote back to her saying essentially this: the whole thing is a terrible oversight on my part, and I have no excuse whatsoever for this to have happened, simply because there is *no* excuse. I should add that you will find my signature on the petition for the Gendered Conference Campaign and that makes my shame and embarrassment all the more vivid. Actually, what I just described as an oversight may very well be understood as my having not entirely shaken the sort of implicit bias that is prevalent in philosophy, there is no other explanation, as there is no evading the responsibility. Therefore, I can only apologize (as I shall do to members of the Canadian Philosophical Association) in the most sincerely felt way and beg for forgiveness for having thus harmfully misrepresented not only the true state of the discipline, but also the fact that many women have published first-rate papers in the pages of Dialogue through the years that could have been included in this special issue.”
Thank you, Mathieu.
Feminist philosopher Louise Antony has won the the APA Committee on Public Philosophy’s Op-Ed Contest for the best op-eds published by philosophers in 2011!
Here’s what they said:
“The goal of the contest is to honor 5 standout pieces that blend successfully
philosophical argumentation with an Op-Ed writing style. A committee of
four philosophers from the APA committee on public philosophy judged 23
submissions. Your op-ed, “Goodness Minus God,” calls public attention to the
value of philosophical thinking. It is accessible to the general public. It is also
concerned with important topics of public concern and characterized by sound
reasoning. These were the contests’ four criteria for selection, on which grounds your piece was
Update: Here’s the article. (Whoops!)